Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Oct 2006 08:39 In article <8_CdnfSowYEpP6rYRVnygg(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eh7ovu$8qk_001(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <YrGdnWfM1rcLD6vYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eh5425$8qk_010(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <0oWdnYXsM90H3KjYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>>message >>>>>news:009aj2dksthbu9fopngsr64nhfofi1dnjl(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 06 12:40:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <odi8j25ttpiuu9t6tbg4jne9cdut88qmin(a)4ax.com>, >>>>>>> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:38:14 +0100, Eeyore >>>>>>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are >>>>>>>>>> > not >>>>>>>>>> >moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should >>>>>>>>>> >not >>>>>>>>>> >be >>>>>>>>>> >a crime. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are lying. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I suspect it's what he learnt at Church. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>American Christian fundamentalists are as dangerous if not more so >>>>>>>>>than >>>>>>>their >>>>>>>>>Muslim counterparts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yeah, all those Southern Baptist suicide bombers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Sigh! Wait. If this gets results it will be tried. >>>>>>>Have you not noticed what's been happening lately? >>>>>>>And it's not just Southern Baptist. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Judiasism and Christianity have generally considered suicide to be a >>>>>> sin. Radical Islam considers it to be a holy act. >>>>> >>>>>An interpretation issue really. It would not be unreasonable for Radical >>>>>Christians or Jews to redefine some aspects of their faith to enable >>>>>suicide >>>>>for a just cause. The bible has killing anyone a sin, >>>> >>>> Murder is a sin; this is not "not killing anyone". >>> >>>"Thou shalt not kill" >>> >>>State sanctioned murder is still murder, otherwise what Saddam Hussein did >>>to the marsh arabs was not murder. >> >> That is how westerners view his killing (as murder). > > >Yes. I agree. All Moslems I have met and discussed this with view it as >murder as well. All Hindus do. And Janes. And Atheists. (etc). > >In the bible, killing someone is wrong. Trying to redefine it to make >"murder" wrong and then coming up with reasons as to why killing person X is >not murder is (IMHO) wrong. > >Unless of course the word of God is so open to interpretation that mere >mortals can have the temerity to explain what he "really" meant. > > >>>>>Christians have been >>>>>fairly free with the definition of this though. >>>> >>>> Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing? >>> >>>I am not a Christian so I do not see where this is going. >>> >>>Killing some one is, IMHO, ending their life against their wishes. >> >> It is in everyone's hardware to have a will to survive. > > >Yes. Killing is wrong. Murder is wrong. But killing people when it is not >murder is still wrong. > > >>> >>>Why? Do you kill where kill is deliberate cessation of a living thing? >> >> Yes. I need to eat to keep living. I also try to keep vermin >> and other critters from tresspassing in my house. If a human >> being is threatening my existenece and I have evidence that >> the intention is real, I will kill or expect someone else >> (whose job is to protect me and mine) to kill him/her/them. > >Yes, and you accept this is a necessary bad thing to keep yourself safe. >Part of the problem is Christianity has historically removed the "life" from >groups that people were allowed to kill. Early followers of Jesus were 100% >pacifists, dying before killing another human. No, they weren't. People thought that Jesus was David come again and would lead an army to defeat the Romans. He died because he disappointed people by not starting a fight. Paul, formerly Saul, was the one who stopped killing Christians and started changing the rules. He was no pacifist. >As Christianity evolved >various reasons to kill others were introduced ranging from "killing to >protect myself" to "killing to protect my family," "killing to protect my >property" and even simply killing because the Pope declared the other person >Heretic so it is now ok. Wow [awed emoticon] > >Killing Animals is a good example. The whole "not having a soul" thing all >help to skirt round the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" rule. > >Humans are good at finding loopholes to exploit. [emoticon rereads post] Yep. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 21 Oct 2006 09:47 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Why not start listening to and watching the BBC > >>>? > >> > >> I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which > >> slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they > >> are taking that day. > > > >Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please? > > Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start. You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Oct 2006 08:43 In article <eh5f79$8b4$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eh54ge$8qk_011(a)s847.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject >>>>> > to >>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the >>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>> >>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the >>>>> radio >>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit >>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the >>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>> >>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they >>>> know >>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had >>>> no >>>> vailidity ! >>> >>> >>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>> >>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >> >>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>guess at how nature and its laws work. >> >>Fundamentalists understand the difference between just a theory >>and their belief. They get threatened when teachers of their >>kids present evolution as a belief; > >It isn't. It's taught in science class as a scientific fact, which it is. Wow. This one was easy. YOu just demonstrated what I wrote. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Oct 2006 08:44 In article <tidcj2hc7r29unnup0qjddadothkt473q2(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject >>>>> > to >>>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the >>>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>>> >>>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the >>>>> radio >>>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit >>>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the >>>>> specifics Darwin described. >>>> >>>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they >>>> know >>>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had >>>> no >>>> vailidity ! >>> >>> >>>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >>> >>>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) >> >>Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >>guess at how nature and its laws work. > >It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's >quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all >situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." > I'm not going to deal with this one. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 21 Oct 2006 09:50
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >The precursors may not quite so simple to make as you imagine. > > Goodfucking GRIEF! I didn't say it was simple. You implied that any country could make these complex precursors. > No chemistry is simple. Have you ever taken a chemistry course? Yes. I have an 'A level' in Chemistry - that's after the 'O level' of course. I can even recite the periodic table from memory. You ? Graham |